14 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

mediation re Spenser pool var~~nce t Natalie Amos From: Natalie Amos Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:35 PM To: 'Terry Besso' Subject: RE: mediation re Spenser pool variance Terry, Page 1 of 3 Thank you for the a-mail. I apologize for the delay in my response; however I have been out of the office. It looks like you have sent me two a-mails so I will respond to the first and then the second in hopes of addressing all of your questions. I did receive a response back from Steve on the 11~' regarding the mediation. I did not contact you upon receiving it as there wasn't any new information. Based on Steve's a-mail he has been waiting to hear back from Russ regarding his setback request. He (Steve) assumes that the delay from Russ is because Russ is waiting to have further conversations with you. According to his a-mail it is his understanding, after talking with Russ, that you have agreed to the proposed "global setbacks" if you agree to do mediation regarding his improvements; so long is the cost is split, that the PUD be amended prior to mediation, that the mediation will occur within 30 days of the PUD approval, and that he (Steve) will not reapply for an improvement permit until the mediation is conducted. Steve said that if he has not heard from the HOA (Russ) in a reasonable amount of time he may want to move forward with his individual modification. In response to your second a-mail: I think it is great that the HOA would like the City to come out and look at the site. I have yet to do so until I had a better understanding of what the HOA wants and what the property owners want. I would be happy to set something up with you, Russ, and/or Steve to look at the entire development or selected sites as some owners may feel that this is an inspection. The City would like to work with the HOA to bring the development into conformance and not to "turn people in" for work that may have been done without City approval and in contrast to the development approval. Therefore, a modification would be required for already "approved" improvements which could be covered under the HOA request depending on the work that has been done on each lot. Also, depending on what the setback is for, it is likely that a 5-foot setback would be allowed. This would depend on the type of structure (arbor attached or detached, pools, sheds, etc). Some people in the HOA may find that they would prefer to have a shed closer then a pool or vise versa; thus, a 3-foot setback for the smaller lots may not be supported depending on what the setback is for. If the HOA is in support of a universal PUD modification, then the City will likely process it as a minor modification. Minor modifications require a 10-day noticing and a 20-day appeal period. If there is no concern from those receiving the noticing or from the PC and CC members, then the request will be approved after the 10-day noticing period. If concerned is raised during the 20-day appeal period, then it automatically becomes a major modification to the PUD and it will require review and action from the Planning Commission and City Council. If the HOA is not in support of a universal or an individual modification, the request is a major modification to the PUD and requires review from the Planning Commission and City Council. Timing for major modifications typically takes 3-6 months. Whether it is a minor or a major modification will depend on whether the Planning Commission or City Council members will need to come out. If the application is going before the PC and CC (major mods) then a direct request to those members can be made. If an application is a minor mod, then it is only necessary to have staff, 2/7/2008